On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:57:35AM +1000, Patrick.Hung@csiro.au wrote:
> - WG comments not yet provided to Liberty
Those comments were now provided, see on the member-only list
> - ACTION: TF to decide what we want to propose for inclusion in the
> 1.1 spec
>
> As the P3P 1.0 spec is described in the context of HTTP, it may be
> appropriate to propose Web services protocols UDDI, WSDL and SOAP in
> the P3P 1.1 spec. In particular, the P3P 1.0 spec does mention to have
> other protocols in Section 2.5.
Yes, the beyond HTTP was already discussed earlier and we didn't wanted
to preclude other uses. For WSDL, comments from Hugo are pending. I will
try to get those soon. For SOAP, we might want some help from the XML
Prot Group in constructing the binding. Perhaps Mark Nottingham is able
to help us a bit.
>
> Thus, I would suggest to describe P3P policy reference files in the
> context of WSDL in the first place.
> It is because WSDL is definitely needed in both "publish" and "direct
> publish" in the Web services model. In addition, a requestor should
> check the WSDL document (at least once before his first time to bind
> to a specific Web service) via a service locator (acts like a user
> agent in P3P). Furthemore, those <include/> and <exclude/> elements
> in P3P 1.0 spec can also be used to define which Web methods in a Web
> service is covered by P3P policies and etc.
I think it is definitely a good idea to look into WSDL bindings. Isn't
this what is already contained in the Task Force WD?
>
> If all these suggestions sound ok, could we propose to describe this
> scenario into Section 2.5 or even a new section in 1.1 spec?
We still have to discuss advantages and disadvantages of having a
standalone document vs. integration into the 1.1 Spec (e.g. conformance)
Best,
Rigo